THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. GOOD MORNING. YESTERDAY EVENING, YOUR HONOR, WE WERE ATTEMPTING -- ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR.
YESTERDAY EVENING, YOUR HONOR, WE WERE DISCUSSING THE POSSIBILITY OF MAKING ALTERATIONS TO THE SOCK TIMELINE CHART OF WHICH THERE WAS AN OBJECTION. AS THE COURT WILL SEE, WE HAVE ALTERED THE OFFENDING LANGUAGE TO REFLECT THE DETAILS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF A REPORT THAT WAS PART OF AN ANALYZED EVIDENCE REPORT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT TO THE COURT AND WHICH I HAVE ALREADY GIVEN TO OPPOSING COUNSEL. WHAT IT SAYS BASICALLY, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT THERE IS A NOTATION REFERRING TO DIFFERENT PIECES OF EVIDENCE, THERE IS A NOTATION FOR SOCKS, NAVY BLUE SLASH BLACK.
IT TALKS ABOUT THEIR BEING "DRESS SOCKS; BLOOD SEARCH (NONE OBVIOUS)," AND WE WOULD SUBMIT, YOUR HONOR, THAT THIS IS A FAIR REFLECTION OF WHAT WE THINK THE EVIDENCE IS GOING TO SHOW. WE WOULD SUBMIT THAT THAT CHART IS NOT UNDULY PREJUDICIAL AND WE WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE COURT SHOULD OVERRULE THE OBJECTIONS AND ALLOW THE ADMITTANCE OF THAT CHART.
THIS REFERS, YOUR HONOR -- THIS DOCUMENT APPARENTLY WAS PREPARED FOR THE SPLIT HEARING. IT IS PEOPLE'S 2 AT THE SPLIT HEARING, AND YAMAUCHI, KESTLER AND MATHESON EACH TESTIFIED ABOUT THE PROCESS BY WHICH THEY TOOK OUT DIFFERENT PIECES OF EVIDENCE AND EXAMINED IT. AND THIS WAS A DOCUMENT THAT WAS PREPARED SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT HEARING.
IT SAYS "SUMMARIZED OF ANALYZED EVIDENCE BY ANALYSIS PERFORMED." THAT IS THE TITLE.
IT IS EXHIBIT 2 AT THE SPLIT HEARING. THE REMAINING OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, WOULD BE IN RESPONSE TO THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE VIDEOTAPES AND THE SCENES THAT WERE REFLECTED OF DIFFERENT OFFICERS WALKING THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE AT VARIOUS TIMES. WE HAVE NOW OBTAINED THE REMAINING TAPE-RECORDINGS, AND YOUR HONOR, THERE WAS A MISSTATEMENT YESTERDAY. THE SCENES THAT WERE SHOWN IN THE TAPE THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN OVER TO THE PEOPLE ARE NOT SCENES THAT WERE TAKEN FROM CNN, BUT RATHER THEY ARE A COLLECTION OF DIFFERENT TAPES THAT WERE RECEIVED FROM DIFFERENT LOCAL NEWS MEDIA, SO THAT FOR US TO INTRODUCE THESE DIFFERENT SNIPPETS, IF YOU WILL, AT TRIAL, WE SIMPLY BE ABLE TO LAY THE FOUNDATION BY SUBPOENAING AND BRINGING IN TO TESTIFY THOSE OPERATORS OF I THINK IT IS LOCAL CHANNELS, 5, 7, 11 AND 13 FROM WHOM THESE PARTICULAR SNIPPETS WERE CULLED. THAT TAPE HAS NOW BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COURT AND THAT TAPE HAS ALSO BEEN PROVIDED TO THE PEOPLE. WE NOW HAVE THE TAPE FROM SAN FRANCISCO THAT HAD TWO OTHER BLIPS THAT WERE NOT SHOWN ON THE FIRST TAPE. I AM TOLD BY MR. HODGMAN THAT THE PEOPLE WOULD CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THEIR OBJECTION, SO WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT THE COURT ALLOW THE SHOWING OF THE SCENES THAT WERE DISPLAYED YESTERDAY. THEY ARE SCENES, YOUR HONOR, THAT ARE VERY CAPABLE OF BEING AUTHENTICATED. IN MANY WAYS IT IS SELF-AUTHENTICATING. IN MANY WAYS THEY ARE AUTHENTICATED BECAUSE THERE WILL BE AN EVIDENCE OR A POLICE LOG WHERE EACH INDIVIDUAL WHO COMES ON TO THE SCENE FIRST CHECKS IN WITH ONE OF THE POLICE OFFICERS THAT ARE THERE. THAT LOG WILL BE AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE. AND IT IS POSSIBLE BY SHOWING THE SCENES AND HAVING THOSE DEPICTED THERE, TESTIFY TO ESTABLISH CLEARLY WHEN THE VARIOUS PIECES OF SCENES WERE TAKEN AND WHAT SORTS OF THINGS WERE OCCURRING.
IT IS TRUE, YOUR HONOR, THAT IT IS THE PEOPLE'S CRIME SCENE. IT IS TRUE, YOUR HONOR, THAT THEY THEMSELVES DO NOT HAVE A VIDEOTAPE OF THE CRIME SCENE. THERE ARE CERTAIN DISCREET ACTS THAT ARE GOING ON, FOR EXAMPLE, DETECTIVE LANGE MEASURING A CERTAIN LOCATION. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU SEE CRIMINALIST FUNG PLACING DOWN PARTICULAR EVIDENCE TAGS. YOU WILL SEE, ALTHOUGH YOU WILL SEE DETECTIVES WALKING THROUGH -- DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND ROGERS WALKING THROUGH, AND QUITE CLEARLY THE SHEET IS THERE BECAUSE THE BODY HAS BEEN REMOVED, BUT THE SHEET REMAINS, AND IT SHOWS, YOUR HONOR, THE SORT OF SENSE THAT WE ARE GOING TO DEPICT IN WORDS. IT HELPS TO PROVIDE A VISUAL CONTEXT TO THE WORDS THAT MR. COCHRAN IS GOING TO SPEAK. HE IS GOING TO DISCUSS HOW THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THERE WAS CONTAMINATION OF THE CRIME SCENE. WE WOULD THEN HOPE TO SHOW PICTURES THAT DEMONSTRATE, THAT REFLECT THE CONTAMINATION OF THE CRIME SCENE. THEY ARE GOING TO OFFER EVIDENCE, I SUPPOSE, YOUR HONOR, HOW THE CRIME SCENE WAS NOT CONTAMINATED. PERHAPS THEY WILL SHOW THAT WHEN THESE SCENES WERE SHOWN ALL OF THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE HAD BEEN COLLECTED. PERHAPS THEY WILL SHOW OR THEY WILL OFFER EVIDENCE THAT WHEN THESE SCENES WERE SHOWN IT WAS THE NEXT DAY OR THE THIRD DAY AFTER.
THAT IS THE RISK THAT WE ARE GOING TO TAKE BY THE STATEMENTS THAT WE ARE GOING TO MAKE IN OUR OPENING STATEMENT, BUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE THE VISUAL REFLECTIONS OF CERTAIN WORDS, MR. COCHRAN I THINK QUITE PROPERLY WILL BE ABLE TO DISCUSS AND TO SPEAK ABOUT HOW THE CRIME SCENE WAS CONTAMINATED AND HOW WE CONTEND THESE SCENES ARE SIMPLY A SMALL REFLECTION FROM THE ONLY LIVE RECORD THAT IS AVAILABLE SHOWING THE CONDUCT OF DETECTIVES VANNATTER AND OTHER DETECTIVES AT BOTH THE ROCKINGHAM AND BUNDY CRIME SCENES ON JUNE THE 13TH. YOUR HONOR, THAT I THINK IS THE END OF MY OBJECTIONS TO THE CHARTS THAT THE -- THAT THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO OFFER AND MY EXPLANATION TO THE ITEMS THAT WERE REMAINING YESTERDAY.
I THOUGHT THAT THE COURT HAD CONCLUDED ITS RULING YESTERDAY WITH RESPECT TO THE TAPE. MR. COCHRAN MADE A MOTION THAT WHEN A RULING IS ISSUED WE NOT REARGUE IT AND WE ALL AGREED TO THAT.
WHAT I SAID YESTERDAY IS THAT IF THE DEFENSE MAKES THE TAPE -- VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE TO YOU AND AFTER REVIEWING THE TAPE YOU STILL MAINTAIN -- I MEAN, WHO KNOWS, AFTER LOOKING AT IT, YOU MIGHT HAVE CHANGED YOUR MIND.
NOW THAT YOU HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY AND IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT HERE, WHAT IS YOUR POSITION?
WHAT HE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SEE IT. THEY JUST GAVE IT TO US THIS MORNING WHEN WE WALKED INTO COURT.
YOUR HONOR, THE FIRST TAPE WAS PLAYED I THINK IN ITS ENTIRETY YESTERDAY. THE SECOND TAPE WE GOT THIS MORNING FROM SAN FRANCISCO, IT IS APPROXIMATELY 25 TO 30 MINUTES LONG; HOWEVER, A LOT OF THAT IS A PRESS CONFERENCE BY POLICE OFFICERS. THE FIRST FIVE OR TEN MINUTES CONTAINS THE THREE CLIPS THAT WE WANT TO USE IN OPENING STATEMENT.
THE SAME PROBLEM EXISTS NOW AS IT DID BEFORE. WE DON'T HAVE A FOUNDATION AS TO TIME AND TIME IS VERY IMPORTANT. THE BLOOD STAINS WERE COLLECTED AT A CERTAIN POINT AND THAT IS NOT ESTABLISHED WITH THE TAPE. SECONDLY, THERE IS A COUNTER AT THE BOTTOM OF THE TAPE THAT IS VERY MISLEADING BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT ACTUALLY PIECES OF TAPE WERE ONE CONTINUOUS SHOOT, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE. AS COUNSEL EVEN CONCEDES, THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE EDITING DONE ON THAT TAPE. AND THE PEOPLE MAINTAIN THEIR OBJECTION.
ALL RIGHT. DON'T YOU THINK THAT WE OUGHT TO AT LEAST LOOK AT THE FIRST FIVE TO TEN MINUTES TO SEE IF YOU STILL DO?
I WILL BE GLAD TO, YOUR HONOR. LET ME GO ON TO THE OTHER EXHIBIT. WITH RESPECT TO THE SOCK TIMELINE --
-- WHAT MR. DOUGLAS HAS REPRESENTED TO THIS COURT IS VERY MISLEADING. I CONFRONTED HIM THIS MORNING AND I EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT THIS IS NOT A BUSINESS RECORD. I SHOULD INDICATE TO THE COURT, FIRST OF ALL, IT WAS A CHART PREPARED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE GRIFFIN HEARING TO -- AND THE BLOOD SPLIT HEARING ACTUALLY AT MY REQUEST BECAUSE I WANTED THE -- TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT THEY PLANNED TO DO WITH ALL THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE AND WHAT SEEMED TO BE SUFFICIENT FOR A SPLIT, WHAT DID NOT, WHAT WAS CAPABLE OF PCR, WHAT SEEMED TO BE CAPABLE OF RFLP. IN THE BOX MARKED "COMMENTS" IT SHOWS "BLOOD SEARCH" BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY PLANNED TO DO. IT HAD NOT YET BEEN DONE. THESE ARE NAVY BLUE TO BLACK SOCKS WHICH IF YOU LOOK AT IT WITH THE NAKED EYE YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE ANYTHING. IT WAS SCHEDULED FOR A BLOOD SEARCH AND IT WAS PUT DOWN THAT NONE WAS OBVIOUS BECAUSE ON A BLACK PAIR OF SOCKS YOU ARE NOT GOING TO SEE BLOOD. AT BEST YOU MIGHT SEE SOMETHING WET, BUT BEFORE A PERIOD OF TIME, AND WHEN IT DRIES YOU WON'T EVEN SEE THAT, SO IT WAS SCHEDULED FOR A BLOOD SEARCH. AND WHAT MR. DOUGLAS HAS ON THIS CHART IS VERY MISLEADING BECAUSE IT INDICATES THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY LOOKED FOR BLOOD AND THAT NONE IS OBVIOUS. THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. AND IF MR. DOUGLAS HAD SPOKEN TO MR. MATHESON HE WOULD TELL THEM WE PUT IT THERE, AS MANY OF THE OTHER ITEMS LISTED IN THIS "COMMENTS" COLUMN, AS A PROSPECTIVE PLAN. YOU CAN SEE ON THIS LIST IT SAYS JUST ABOVE IT THE ITEM NO. 12, "SWATCH, RFLP POSSIBLE" AND ON PREVIOUS ITEMS IT SHOWS "RFLP WOULD CONSUME, PCR ONLY." IT IS VERY OBVIOUS WHAT THIS IS. THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS CAPABLE OF BEING DONE AND WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO, NOT THAT IT HAS BEEN DONE. IT HADN'T BEEN, SO WHAT COUNSEL HAS PUT THERE IS AGAIN COMPLETELY MISLEADING. IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT OCCURRED.
MAY I ALSO REQUEST LEAVE OF THE COURT, THERE WAS ONE CHART WE HAD NOT YET SEEN THAT WE ONLY SAW A XEROX COPY OF. I WANTED TO ADDRESS THE COURT FURTHER ON IT AND I THINK I CAN DO THAT BETTER IF I HAVE THE CHART IN FRONT OF ME. THE THAT WAS THE CHART ENTITLED "DECEPTIONS, DISTORTIONS."
I HAD LOST MY COPY OF IT AT THE TIME, YOUR HONOR. THERE IS LANGUAGE ON IT THAT I WANTED TO OBJECT TO, NOT THE ENTIRE CHART, BUT CERTAIN LANGUAGE ON IT AND I NEED TO CONFIRM THAT IT IS ON IT. IF IT IS NOT, THERE WILL BE NONE, BUT THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH NOT HAVING EVERYTHING IN COURT ON FRIDAY.
COUNSEL, IS THERE A REASON YOU DIDN'T TELL ME THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU WHEN YOU ASKED ME TO RULE ON THAT?
I'M ONLY ASKING LEAVE TO SEE THE CHART AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS. I HAVE NOT SEEN THE FINAL HARD COPY. ALL WE SAW WAS A RENDERING ON AN 8-BY-10 PIECE OF PAPER. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT THE FINAL CHART SAYS.
I HAVE IT, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, THE CHART IS BEING MOUNTED RIGHT NOW AND IT WILL BE PICKED UP THIS MORNING, BUT IT JUST MIRRORS THIS PARTICULAR CHART.
WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST ENTRY, "MARK FUHRMAN AND THE GLOVES," IT INDICATES PLURAL. AT NO TIME DID MARK FUHRMAN SO TESTIFY AND THE CHART IS MISLEADING WITH RESPECT TO THAT LANGUAGE. THE PEOPLE OBJECT TO THE USE OF THE PLURAL. THAT NEVER OCCURRED. SECONDLY, "VANNATTER WARRANT." THE SEARCH WARRANT AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SEARCH ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE TRIAL BEFORE THE TRIER OF FACT. THAT IS A LEGAL ISSUE THAT THE COURT RULES UPON THAT IS IMPROPER TO RAISE IN OPENING STATEMENT, LET ALONE IN TRIAL. I WOULD FURTHER MENTION TO THE COURT, I THOUGHT THE COURT RULED THAT MARK FUHRMAN COULD NOT BE MENTIONED IN OPENING STATEMENT.
FURTHERMORE, THE RON PHILLIPS STATEMENT TO THE CORONER, "WE ARE KIND OF NOT FOLLOWING PROCEDURE BUT WE ARE KIND OF ASKING A FAVOR," A STATEMENT LIFTED OUT OF CONTEXT. THAT IS HEARSAY FROM A TRANSCRIPT THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE CORONER; NOT A STATEMENT MADE -- NOT A REPORT MADE BY RON PHILLIPS AND IT IS MISLEADING AND CONFUSING ON THAT BASIS.
ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, BEFORE YOU GET TOO MUCH FURTHER, COUNSEL, THIS IS AN ARGUMENT. THIS IS NOT AN OPENING STATEMENT EXHIBIT.
YOUR HONOR, IN THIS MATTER, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING YESTERDAY THAT THE PEOPLE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING. WE DID SHOW THIS TO THEM AND MISS CLARK INDICATES SHE HAD NO OBJECTION. WE DON'T WANT TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE. THIS WAS PASSED WE THOUGHT. OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF PRECAUTION, IF THE COURT PLEASES, BECAUSE WE ANTICIPATED THAT SHE MIGHT CHANGE HER MIND, WE HAVE ANOTHER CHART WHICH I THINK THE COURT WILL FIND HOPEFULLY LESS ARGUMENTATIVE. I WOULD LIKE FOR THE COURT TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT. WHAT THIS IS BASICALLY IS A SUMMARY OF THE CONDUCT. AND I WANTED ONE OTHER QUERY OF THE COURT. WITH REGARD TO MR. FUHRMAN, THE COURT DID NOT SAY WE COULD NOT TALK ABOUT MARK FUHRMAN, I UNDERSTAND, IN OPENING STATEMENT. WHAT YOU INDICATED WAS THAT WITH REGARD TO THE KATHLEEN BELL INCIDENT I THINK YOU SAID, BUT YOU NEVER SAID WE COULDN'T TALK ABOUT MARK FUHRMAN. THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR. MAY I SHOW THIS TO MR. HODGMAN AND GIVE YOUR HONOR A COPY OF THIS PROPOSAL?
WOULD THE COURT ALLOW ME, WITH REGARD TO THESE ITEMS, THE COURT WILL RECALL THAT AS PART OF THE EXHIBITS WE WILL HAVE A VIDEO CLIP OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. IF MISS CLARK OBJECTS TO THE USE OF THE WORDS "GLOVES," I WILL STIPULATE TO STRIKE -- MAKE IT "GLOVE," BUT WE STILL ARE GOING TO MAY THAT CLIP. WITH REGARD TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A TRANSCRIPT -- WE PASSED THIS YESTERDAY -- THAT IS ALREADY COMING IN AND WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE ANYTHING OUT OF CONTEXT. THE PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO SEE EXACTLY THE TRANSCRIPTS. NOTHING IS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. WITH REGARDS TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER WHERE THE STATEMENT WAS MADE THAT SIMPSON HAD LEFT ON AN UNEXPECTED FLIGHT TO CHICAGO, WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT RELITIGATING THE ISSUE, IF THE COURT PLEASES, OF THE ENTRY, BUT TO INDICATE THAT IN THE VERY FIRST CONTACT WITH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AT 10:45 ON 6/12 AN UNTRUTH WAS TOLD. IN THAT WARRANT UNDER OATH THEY DID NOT TELL THE TRUTH AND WE HAVE THAT AND YOU SAW YESTERDAY KATO KAELIN'S STATEMENT. YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO SECURING, DOCUMENTING AND PRESERVING THE CRIME SCENE, EVERYONE HAS BEEN VERY MUCH AWARE OF THAT, THAT THE TRAINEE MAZZOLLA WAS -- THE THIRD CRIME SCENE-- WAS BASICALLY THE OFFICER IN CHARGE THERE. WITH REGARD TO THE BRONCO, WE HAVE LITIGATED THIS AND COUNSEL HAS KNOWN FOR SOME TIME AND WE HAVE MADE IT IN AS INNOCUOUS LANGUAGE AS WE CAN, THAT THEY FAILED TO GIVE THAT SPECIAL CARE FOR EVIDENCE PRESENTATION. WE SHOWED ALL THIS YESTERDAY, YOUR HONOR. WE WENT THROUGH IT. THEY HAD NO OBJECTION. THE DNA TESTING WE SAID CONSISTENTLY, THEY CAN TALK ALL THEY WANT ABOUT DNA, BUT ALL THE DNA EVIDENCE PASSED THROUGH THE LAPD BEFORE IT WENT TO ANY OTHER LAB AND WE THINK IT IS OUR RIGHT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. WE HAVE A CHART THAT WE HAVE ALREADY PASSED ON OF THE -- O.J.'S BLOOD VIAL, THIS MYSTERIOUS BLOOD VIAL AND ITS SAGA, WHERE IT WENT, INSTEAD OF BEING BOOKED APPROPRIATELY. AND FINALLY THE QUESTION OF THE SOCKS, WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS NONE OBVIOUS ON THE SOCKS. I DISAGREE WITH MY LEARNED ADVERSARY THAT BLOOD IS RED, ALBEIT DARK RED, IT IS NOT BLACK LIKE SOCKS, AND YOU WOULD BE ABLE I SUGGEST TO SEE IT. THE QUESTION IS IF THE PROSECUTION THINKS THAT THEY HAVE A THEORY AND IF WE DON'T AGREE WITH THAT THEORY THEY THINK THEY ARE ALWAYS RIGHT. THAT IS WHAT A TRIAL IS ABOUT. THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE, JUDGE. THEY ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT. THAT IS WHY THEY LOSE CASES SOMETIMES. THEY ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT. THE JURY WILL MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. AND THIS IDEA OF PROTECTING THIS JURY, THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO. YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY ABOUT DOING OUR JOBS AND THAT'S WHEN THE SYSTEM WORKS BEST, YOUR HONOR, AS YOU WELL KNOW. YOU DO YOUR JOB, WE DO OUR JOB, THEY DO THEIR JOB. WE DON'T NEED MISS CLARK TO DO THE JOB FOR THE JURY. THEY'LL DO THEIR JOB AND YOU'LL DO YOUR JOB, AND I PROMISE WE'LL DO OUR JOB, JUDGE, AND THAT IS WHAT YOU ASKED US TO DO AND THAT'S ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. THIS IS A MAN THAT WE HAVE CONTENDED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IS WRONGFULLY ACCUSED AND WE -- THEY ARE IN FOR THE FIGHT OF THEIR LIVES, AND SO THIS IS NOT ANY -- IT IS NOT ANY GAME AND SO WE ARE VERY SERIOUS ABOUT THIS.
WE DON'T WANT TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE AND WE WANT TO JUST SPELL OUT -- AND WE LOOKED AT THIS LAST NIGHT AND EVEN THOUGH SHE PASSED ON THIS, WE THINK WE SPELLED THIS OUT AND WE THINK IT ADDRESSES ALL OF THE CONCERNS, YOUR HONOR, AND I THINK THAT CERTAINLY IN OPENING STATEMENT ONE CAN'T BE PRECLUDED ABOUT WHAT OUR THEORY OF THE CASE IS IN GOOD FAITH. AND SO WHAT WE ARE DOING NOW IS MUCH MORE THAN USUAL, JUDGE. THEY ARE HAVING A TOTAL PREVIEW OF THE THINGS WE EXPECT TO USE.
YOUR HONOR, THIS PRETTY MUCH STARTS WHERE THE OTHER ONE LEFT OFF YESTERDAY. THE BODIES HAVE BEEN REMOVED BUT THE CORONER IS STILL THERE AND MR. FUNG IS PUTTING DOWN HIS TAGS.
(A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.) THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON.
YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT CONTAINS ALL OF THE CLIPS THAT WE WISH TO SLOW IN OPENING. THERE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE AFTER THIS BUT --
-- AGAIN, THE SAME FOUNDATIONAL PROBLEMS WE HAVE WITH RESPECT TO TIME. WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHENTICATION IN TERMS OF THE TIMING AND THAT IS CRITICAL IN TERMS OF THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION. THE INFERENCE THAT THE DEFENSE WILL SEEK TO DRAW IS THAT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY LAPD WAS CONTAMINATED IN SOME MANNER BY THE METHOD -- BY THE ACTIONS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE TAPE. IF THE EVIDENCE WAS ALREADY COLLECTED BY THE TIME THESE PEOPLE ARE SHOWN IN THE POSITIONS SHOWN IN THE VIDEO, THEN THERE IS IN FACT NO IMPACT AND THE INFERENCE THAT THEY ARE SEEKING TO DRAW IS DIRECTLY MISLEADING TO THE JURY AND THAT IS ONE THING THAT IN OPENING STATEMENT NEITHER SIDE IS PERMITTED TO DO. THE PEOPLE ARE NOT ATTEMPTING TO TELL THE DEFENSE HOW TO TRY THEIR CASE. THE PEOPLE ARE ASKING THIS COURT ONLY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE JURY IS NOT MISLED SO THAT THEY GET THE TRUTH, SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE EVIDENCE REALLY IS, NOT SPIN AND NOT DISTORTION AND NOT HALF TRUTHS OR STATEMENTS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, BUT THE TRUTH. AND THE PROBLEM WITH A VIDEO SUCH AS THIS ONE IS THAT WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHEN IT WAS SHOT. AND THE INFERENCE THAT THE DEFENSE SEEKS TO DRAW FROM IT MAY BE COMPLETELY FALSE, IN WHICH CASE THE JURY BEGINS THE CASE WITH A TOTAL MISCONCEPTION ABOUT THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE EVIDENCE WAS COLLECTED. AND THAT IS A VERY DAMAGING THING AND THAT IS WHY THE DEFENSE OF COURSE SEEKS TO DO IT, I UNDERSTAND, BUT IT IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO. THE JURY DESERVES TO GET THE TRUTH AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THE EVIDENCE REALLY IS.
ALL RIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE OTHER ISSUES, THE SOCK CHART AND THE CONDUCT CHART?
YES. I THINK THE SOCK CHART I HAVE, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE ADDRESSED THAT. THAT IS AGAIN TOTALLY MISLEADING WITH RESPECT TO BLOOD SEARCH. WITH RESPECT TO THE CHART NOW, THE NEW ONE IS EVEN WORSE THAN THE OTHER. FIRST OF ALL, IT REPEATS THE MISLEADING AND COMPLETELY FALSE INFERENCE DRAWN ABOUT THE BLOOD SEARCH. THEY SEEK TO ARGUE IN DEROGATION OF REALITY, IN DEROGATION OF THE TRUTH. THE TRUTH IS THAT IT WAS SCHEDULED FOR A BLOOD SEARCH. WHAT THEY SEEK TO INFER FROM THIS IS THAT IT WAS ALREADY CONDUCTED AND NONE WAS OBVIOUS, AND THAT IS EXACTLY A HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DEGREES OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH, SO THAT IS A COMPLETE FALSEHOOD. WITH RESPECT TO MARK FUHRMAN AND THE GLOVES, AGAIN IT IS FALSE. THEY STATE -- THEY PUT ON THE PLURAL WHICH WAS NEVER STATED BY MARK FUHRMAN. THEY TAKE HIS STATEMENT OUT OF CONTEXT. THERE IS AN EXTENSIVE COLLOQUY BETWEEN HIMSELF AND COUNSEL IN WHICH HE REFERS TO ONE GLOVE THAT HE SAW AT THE FOOT OF RON GOLDMAN AND HE SAYS THAT REPEATEDLY, AND YET TAKING ONE STATEMENT OUT OF CONTEXT THEY SEEK TO DRAW INFERENCES FROM IT. IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE, IT IS NOT AN OPENING STATEMENT AND IT IS MISLEADING AND UNFAIR BECAUSE IT IS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.
THE SAME WOULD GO FOR RON PHILLIPS TO THE CORONER. OF COURSE THESE ARE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. HOW COULD COUNSEL ARGUE TO THE CONTRARY WHEN YOU HAVE A LENGTHY TRANSCRIPT OF STATEMENTS THAT HAVE EXPLANATORY INFORMATION BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER. YOU HAVE A AND C AND YOU TAKE OUT B AND THAT IS WHAT COUNSEL HAS DONE, TAKEN IT OUT OF PROPER CONTEXT AND STUCK IT ON A CHART, AND AGAIN IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. WITH RESPECT TO THE VANNATTER WARRANT, THAT STATEMENT IS IRRELEVANT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT LANGUAGE IN A SEARCH WARRANT THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE COURT TO RULE ON. THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A JURY TO BE PRESENTED. THE JURY HAS TO BE THE TRIER OF FACT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OR INNOCENT, NOT WHETHER THE SEARCH WAS PROPER OR IMPROPER. THAT IS A LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT GOES TO THE COURT; NOT TO THE JURY. THAT STATEMENT IS INAPPROPRIATE AND IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE AS WELL. WITH RESPECT TO PRESERVING THE CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE, THE DEFENSE -- IF THEY ARE SAYING THE TRAINEE IS ANDREA MAZZOLLA, ANDREA MAZZOLLA WAS NOT IN CHARGE. SHE WAS A TRAINEE WHO WAS BEING SUPERVISED BY DENNIS FUNG, SO THIS IS FALSE. THIS IS A FALSE STATEMENT. IF THAT IS WHO THEY ARE CLAIMING WAS IN CHARGE OF THE CRIME SCENE, THAT IS UNTRUE AND MISLEADING. I THOUGHT THAT THE COURT'S RULING PERTAINING TO MARK FUHRMAN WAS THAT NEITHER SIDE COULD MENTION HIM. THAT WAS JUST KATHLEEN BELL?
WITH RESPECT TO THE ITEMS "FAILED TO GIVE SPECIAL CARE," THAT IS MISLEADING AS WELL. THAT IS PUT IN QUOTES AS THOUGH IT COMES FROM A MANUAL OF SOME KIND, WHICH WE KNOW IS NOT TRUE, AND IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. YES, IT IS TRUE ALL EVIDENCE PASSED THROUGH LAPD. NO OBJECTION TO THAT. WITH RESPECT TO "ALL BLOOD NOT ACCOUNTED FOR," THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT. IF COUNSEL THINKS THEY CAN LAY A FOUNDATION THROUGH THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL, THAT IS CERTAINLY APPROPRIATE FOR ARGUMENT, BUT IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR OPENING STATEMENT AND AGAIN IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. IS THE COURT --
WE WILL BE PATIENT AT ALL TIMES. YOUR HONOR, IN THIS -- FIRST OF ALL, LET ME AGAIN POINT OUT THIS IS AN OPENING STATEMENT AND WHEREAS THEY HAVE THEIR THEORIES AND WE HAVE NOT SAID THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE THEIR THEORIES, WE THINK WE HAVE THE FACTS, BUT CERTAINLY CONTINGENT UPON THAT WE HAVE CERTAIN INTERPRETATIONS OF WHAT WE THINK THE EVIDENCE IS, AS THE COURT HAS SO CORRECTLY STATED. WE WERE PERMITTED TO TALK ABOUT THOSE THINGS. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS CHART, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES PEOPLE SHOULDN'T OBJECT IF THEY HAVE NOTHING TO SAY. AND IN THIS INSTANCE, YOUR HONOR, I ALREADY CONCEDED WITH REGARD TO USING THE WORD "GLOVES." I DON'T WANT TO MISLEAD ANYBODY. WE WILL TAKE THE "S" OFF. WITH REGARD TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AVAILABLE. THE COURT HAS RULED WE CAN USE IT.
WITH REGARD TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WE ARE NOT RELITIGATING ANYTHING. AS I SAID, IT IS ABOUT CREDIBILITY, AND WITH REGARD TO -- AND THIS IS WHERE COUNSEL, WHO SUPPOSEDLY KNOWS HER CASE, SHOULD REFER TO HER OWN DOCUMENTS. I WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO SEE THIS REGARDING OFFICER MAZZOLLA. WE HAVE A FORM 94-0817431 WHICH SAYS "OIC NAME." "OFFICER IN CHARGE, NAME, A. MAZZOLLA. ASSISTANT NAME, D. FUNG." WE DON'T MAKE THESE THINGS UP. AND I WILL BE GLAD TO HAVE THEM LOOK AT THAT. IT IS THEIR FORM. WE DON'T MAKE THESE THINGS UP. WITH REGARD TO "FAIL TO TAKE SPECIAL CARE," IN QUOTES, THAT IS FROM THE LAPD FORM, YOUR HONOR. REMEMBER YESTERDAY WHEN WE SHOWED YOU THE FORM, WE PULLED THAT UP WHERE THEY FAILED TO CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX WHEN THE BRONCO WAS LEFT BASICALLY UNATTENDED FOR ALL THOSE MONTHS. NOW, SHE CAN CONCEDED THE DNA DID PASS THROUGH LAPD. YES, IT DOES, YOUR HONOR. WITH REGARD TO THE BLOOD VIAL, THAT IS OUR BELIEF BASED UPON ALL THE DOCUMENTS WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN DISCOVERY, AND IF IT TURNS OUT WRONG, THIS IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO SAY. THIS IS BASED UPON THE DOCUMENTS WE HAVE HAD RECEIVED. SHE CAN'T TELL US WHAT OUR POSITION IS OR WHAT IT SHOULD BE. SHE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING. WITH REGARD TO THE SOCKS, WE WILL ACCEPT WHATEVER YOUR HONOR SAYS ABOUT THAT. AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PARTICULAR FORM, YOUR HONOR, THIS FORM IS ENTITLED "O.J. SIMPSON SUMMARY OF ANALYZED EVIDENCE BY ANALYSIS PERFORMED." WE ARE USING THEIR OWN FORM. THEIR OWN FORM, YOUR HONOR, BY ANALYSIS PERFORMED, AND IT SAYS UNDER THERE "NONE OBVIOUS" AND SO WE TOOK THEIR OWN FORM. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A RECENT MOVIE, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS A LINE WHICH I THINK IS VERY APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE -- I THINK IT WAS A FEW GOOD MEN -- WE KEEP HEARING ABOUT THE TRUTH. I DON'T THINK THEY CAN STAND THE TRUTH. THAT IS WHAT JACK NICHOLSON SAID. YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE TRUTH.
AND THAT IS I THINK VERY APPROPRIATE IN THIS SITUATION. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE.
HUM? THE BAD GUYS SAY SOMETHING WORTHWHILE SOMETIMES, YOUR HONOR, SO EVEN BAD GUYS -- EVEN BAD GUYS TELL THE TRUTH ON OCCASION. CERTAINLY WE AREN'T THE BAD GUYS IN THIS CASE, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO ONE OTHER THING YOU ASKED US TO DO AT THE END OF THE DAY AND I BELIEVE THIS IS ON PAGE 25 OF VOLUME 2 -- STRIKE THAT -- VOLUME 11 OF THE REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FROM THURSDAY, JULY 7, 1994, I WOULD ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO READ THIS. IT IS MR. SHAPIRO QUESTIONING.
"QUESTION: HOW MUCH BLOOD DID YOU WITHDRAW FROM MR. SIMPSON?
"ANSWER: APPROXIMATELY EIGHT CC'S.
"QUESTION: WHEN YOU SAY 'APPROXIMATELY,' DID YOU NOT MEASURE THE AMOUNT?
"ANSWER: WELL, IT COULD HAVE BEEN 7.9 OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN 8.1. I JUST LOOKED AT THE SYRINGE AND LOOKED AT ABOUT EIGHT CC'S."
YOU ASKED US TO FIND THAT FOR YOU AND I WILL GIVE THIS TO THE CLERK, BUT ALL WE ARE ASKING TO DO, YOUR HONOR, IS TO STOP ALL OF THIS HAGGLING AND LET'S START WITH THE OPENING STATEMENTS. AND WE PREVIEWED EVERYTHING AND I THINK IT IS TIME TO RESOLVE IT.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION TO THE USE OF THE VIDEOTAPE IS SUSTAINED. THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN THAT THE -- THE CONCESSION HAS BEEN THAT THESE ARE SNIPPETS AND THAT THE DEFENSE IS WILLING TO TAKE THE RISK IN ARGUMENT THAT THEY CANNOT LAY AN ACCURATE FOUNDATION. THE PROBLEM IS THAT LEADS TO THE DANGER OF MISLEADING THE JURY, AND I'M NOT WILLING TO TAKE THAT RISK DURING THE COURSE OF AN OPENING STATEMENT, SO THAT OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED. AS TO THE SOCK CHART, THE LANGUAGE THAT COMES -- THAT IS ON THE SOCK CHART COMES FROM A SUMMARY OF REPORTS AND TESTING. IT IS NOT THE REPORT ITSELF. THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED AS TO THE LANGUAGE "BLOOD SEARCH NONE OBVIOUS." IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS THE SOCK TIMELINE CHART MAY BE USED. AS TO THE CONDUCT CHART, THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED. THESE QUOTES -- SOME OF THESE QUOTES ARE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT AND THERE IS A DANGER OF MISLEADING THE JURY AS A RESULT, SO THAT OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, I THINK THAT -- OH, I DID NOT RULE YESTERDAY ON THE -- MRS. ROBERTSON REMINDED ME I DID NOT RULE ON THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DEFENDANT AND FOUR LADIES IN FORMAL DRESS.
I DIDN'T CHECK IT OFF ON MY LIST AND MRS. ROBERTSON INDICATED I DIDN'T RULE, SO THE OBJECTION ON THAT -- AS TO THAT IS OVERRULED, SO THE RECORD IS COMPLETE. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, THAT TAKES CARE OF THAT. LET ME JUST ADVISE COUNSEL TOMORROW ONE OF OUR SEQUESTERED JURORS HAS A MEDICAL APPOINTMENT AND WE WILL ADJOURN TOMORROW AT 3:30.
THERE WAS A RECENT MOVIE, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS A LINE WHICH I THINK IS VERY APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE -- I THINK IT WAS A FEW GOOD MEN -- WE KEEP HEARING ABOUT THE TRUTH. I DON'T THINK THEY CAN STAND THE TRUTH.
WASN'T HE THE BAD GUY?
WHAT MR. DOUGLAS HAS ON THIS CHART IS VERY MISLEADING BECAUSE IT INDICATES THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY LOOKED FOR BLOOD AND THAT NONE IS OBVIOUS. THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.
COUNSEL, I THINK WE NEED AN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER FOR THE LAWYERS.
WE HAVE A FORM 94-0817431 WHICH SAYS 'OIC NAME.' 'OFFICER IN CHARGE, NAME, A. MAZZOLLA. ASSISTANT NAME, D. FUNG.' WE DON'T MAKE THESE THINGS UP.